Michael Rosefield wrote:
> Hi,
> 1) My thoughts are that an act of euthanasia would be more likely to 
> 'push' the consciousness of the patient to some hitherto unlikely 
> scenario - any situation where death is probable requires an improbable 
> get-out clause. The patient may well find themselves in a world where 
> their suffering is curable/has been cured. Might even be brains-in-jars 
> time.
> 2) I think that neural systems possess a quality called something like 
> 'graceful decline;' the brain can undergo a lot of random damage before 
> its function is significantly affected. But once it does start to go 
> down the toilet, I'm not sure what the conscious experience of that 
> would be. Presumably it would be something like Alzheimers or a pretty 
> bad case of the mornings, and everything would appear to be rather 
> scattershot and disconnected. From the perspective of the victim (I 
> would say 'patient' again, but let's face it - this is one mean 
> scenario!) I wonder if this weakens the connection to this particular 
> context, and they'd find it more likely to move in the direction of 
> universes in which the process is reversed or nullified.

You seem to implicitly assume that the subject's consciousness is a single, 
unified "thing" that can move hither and yon in the Hilbert space of the 
universe.  But the multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, on 
the above scenarios are based, says that the physical basis of consciousness 
splits almost continuously into non-interacting subspaces.  Are we to suppose 
that your other brains in Hilbert space are empty of consciousness until you 
"move" to them?

Brent Meeker

> 2008/10/22 razihassan <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
>     Hi all
>     First post! I'm happy to have found this list as much of it coincides
>     with what I've been thinking about in the past few years, esp. after
>     reading about quantum roulette and realising, as many others have
>     done, that this leads to quantum immortality.
>     1) Lately, I've been thinking about euthanasia and the QTI.
>     Previously, being somewhat of a liberal in these matters, I've always
>     held that, assuming proper checks and balances (BIG assumption),
>     euthanasia was ok, as it relieved the suffering of the patient as well
>     as their loved ones.
>     If QTI holds then "killing" the patient won't work (from the patient's
>     frame of reference), so you're not actually alleviating their
>     suffering. You may of course be relieving the suffering of the
>     patient's loved ones (from THEIR pov) but I think we're on dangerous
>     ground when you consider whether or not you should kill someone solely
>     for their' families' sake.
>     So, should QTI-ists be campaigning against euthanasia, not because of
>     the traditional 'life is sacred' objection, but because it simply
>     doesn't work? Can anyone see an alternative - based perhaps on
>     anaethetising the patient indefinitely?
>     2) I'd like to propose a thought experiment. A subject has his brain
>     cells removed one at a time by a patient assistant using a very fine
>     pair of tweezers. The brain cell is then destroyed in an incinerator.
>     Is there a base level of consciousness beyond which, from the pov of
>     the subject, the assistant will be unable to remove any more cells,
>     since conscious experience will be lost? ie is there a minimum level
>     of 'experience' beyond which nature will appear to act to always
>     maintain the physical brain?
>     If there is, does the second law of thermodynamics not suggest that
>     all brains inexorably head towards this quantum of consciousness, for
>     as long as our brains are physical?
>     Razi
> > 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to